ISSUE-181: Should we have only the existing class dqv:QualityMeasureDataset (formerly known as daq:QualityGraph) or keep the new class dqv:QualityMetadata?
Should we have only the existing class dqv:QualityMeasureDataset (formerly known as daq:QualityGraph) or keep the new class dqv:QualityMetadata?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Quality & Granularity Vocabulary
- Raised by:
- Antoine Isaac
- Opened on:
- 2015-06-12
- Description:
- Should we have only the existing class dqv:QualityMeasureDataset (formerly known as daq:QualityGraph) or keep the new class dqv:QualityMetadata to represent a set of statements providing quantitative and/or qualitative information about the dataset or distribution. One could be a sub-class of the other.
- Related Actions Items:
ACTION-253 on Riccardo Albertoni to Add proposed text above in the minutes on 2016-03-14 and close issue 181 - due 2016-03-21, closed- Related emails:
- Re: DQV terminology - Quality Measure, Measurement, Observation? (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2016-02-19)
- Re: DQV terminology - Quality Measure, Measurement, Observation? (from auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr on 2016-02-19)
- Re: DQV terminology - Quality Measure, Measurement, Observation? (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2016-02-19)
- Re: DQV, DAQ and Data Cube graphs - ISSUE 182 (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2015-09-04)
- Re: Agenda for tomorrow's meeting (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2015-09-03)
- Re: DQV, DAQ and Data Cube graphs (from albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it on 2015-09-03)
- Re: DQV, DAQ and Data Cube graphs (from Jeremy.Debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de on 2015-09-03)
- Re: DQV, DAQ and Data Cube graphs (from christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl on 2015-09-01)
- Re: Agenda for tomorrow - Data quality vocab (from bfl@cin.ufpe.br on 2015-08-28)
- Re: Agenda for tomorrow - Data quality vocab (from laufer@globo.com on 2015-08-27)
- Agenda for tomorrow - Data quality vocab (from hadley@linkedgov.org on 2015-08-27)
- DQV, DAQ and Data Cube graphs (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2015-08-27)
- dwbp-ISSUE-181: Should we have only the existing class daq:QualityGraph or keep the new class dqv:QualityMetadata? [Quality & Granularity Vocabulary] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-06-12)
Related notes:
Resolved [https://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes]:
Adding a note saying that qualityMetadata graph not necessary contains all of quality statements DQV is supporting and it is left to implementers decide the granularity of containement. Moreover If they want not use graph containement they can consider to use their own property to link instances of quality metadata with instances of other DQV classes. For example using (a subproperty of) dcterms:hasPart.
ACTION: riccardoAlbertoni to add proposed text above in the minutes on 2016-03-14 and close issue 181 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/03/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action10]
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/253
]
Display change log
